I don't think it mentions it in that article, but in one of the articles yesterday they said that there were no plans to replace the WTC itself because, among other reasons, the victems' families have demanded that the footprints be set aside for a memorial.
Maybe i don't understand because i've never lost anyone to tragic unforseen circumstances and such. I kind of understand the desire for the memorial, however if i'd died in the attack (and could direct things from the afterlife of course =) or if someone i'd known had died in the attack, i would think setting aside the footprint for a memorial was just fine, as long as the memorial was planed to be on top of the two 120 story towers that were going to be built on the site.
I must have a defiant nature or something, cause my thoughts run to the line that if they knock it down, then we should just build it back bigger, better, and higher. Short of bombing the fuck out of the people who actually planed the attack (we seem to be having trouble actually tracking them down, but we've had a lot of luck bombing random Afghanistan villages, UN groups, and Canadians!) i think that's really the best response we could make.
I fail to see how people can be babbling on about how we can't do X or Y because "then the terrorists will already have won!" and yet even consider the possibility of not rebuilding the WTC. Up until the terrorist attacks i couldn't really have cared less about the WTC, but now that "they" want to get rid of it it actaully matters somewhat to me. Too bad i'm gonna get overruled by all the people who think that the only possible memorial is a big field of open ground.